Ukraine has begun the new year in a dark place. The failure of its much-anticipated offensive has sparked dissension among leaders. Russia is launching massed drone attacks against targets throughout the country. Kyiv is calling for 500,000 more soldiers, but new recruits need to be practically kidnapped off the street to fill the ranks.
This is the way wars go. Elation with tactical successes gives way to desperation as battlefield reverses cloud the outcome. Russia, which has lost most of the force with which it began the war, is experiencing similar angst. But there’s little sign either side is willing to give up.
In such circumstances, the Biden administration needs to signal no loss of resolve, and convince Congress to renew military aid—even if it means changing the administration’s border policies.
But Biden and company also need to figure out what they can do differently in the immediate future to improve Ukraine’s military position. Building up Ukraine’s defense industry or supplying fighters isn’t going to alter the current correlation of forces anytime soon.
Giving Ukraine more tanks will.
Numerous commentaries have been written about why the offensive failed, but the core cause comes down to this: Kyiv and Moscow switched roles, with Kyiv going on the offensive while Moscow adopted a defensive posture. In ground warfare, the defense almost always has an advantage—especially when neither side has command of the air.
Experience on the Western Front in World War One illustrates the edge enjoyed by the defense. Once battle lines stabilized, they didn’t shift more than ten miles during the entire conflict. The two sides were too dug in.
That’s pretty much where the Ukraine war stands today. The one weapon that might make a difference, tanks, was ineptly used during its infancy on the Western Front, and faces similar disabilities in Ukraine today.
Without decisive air power, the only way to punch through entrenched defenses is by massing heavy armor. But that requires hundreds of tanks, and what Kyiv possesses today is a grab-bag of disparate vehicles. The best tank available is the U.S.-produced Abrams, but Washington has only supplied 31, with some of their key features removed to satisfy export restrictions.
That is not enough to overcome entrenched defenses. What Ukraine needs is at least two brigades’ worth of Abrams tanks, roughly 200, applied in coordinated fashion. Unlike in the case of fighters or long-range missiles, tanks pose no threat to Russian territory—unless, of course, it is territory that until recently was part of Ukraine (like Crimea).
Two hundred tanks isn’t much—the U.S. has actually built over 10,000 Abrams since the 1980s—but it’s enough to do the job given how debilitated Russia’s own inventory of heavy armor has become in the war. In fact, 200 tanks is more than the deployable stock of main battle tanks in today’s British and German militaries.
The logical candidate to meet this need is the U.S. Army’s M1A1 Abrams tanks, predecessors to the current A2 variant. Roughly 5,000 A1s were produced during the last century. Many were later exported or upgraded to the newer configuration, but finding 200 that can be modified fast should not be a heavy lift. The Army National Guard is replacing its A1s, for example.
Under prevailing export rules, the tanks would need to be reconfigured to install exportable armor and fire-control systems, but that can be done in a few months at the Lima tank plant in Ohio and the Army’s Anniston, Alabama maintenance depot.
The tanks would still be heavily covered in composite armor and equipped with a 120mm smoothbore gun capable of firing lethal, versatile rounds. With three machine guns and smoke generators that hide the vehicle from visually-sighted or heat-seeking missiles, the modified M1A1s would be a formidable battlefield presence.
The Biden administration has been understandably cautious in supplying some advanced weapons to the Ukrainian military. After all, Russia possesses thousands of nuclear weapons, hundreds of which can reach U.S. territory. Any move that might be interpreted as threatening the survival of the Russian state would be a bad idea.
But providing the world’s preeminent main battle tank in reasonable numbers to bolster Ukraine’s tactical position is a reachable goal if the Biden administration will confer upon it the priority it deserves. It can be done quickly and relatively inexpensively. At the very least, it would help drive Moscow to the bargaining table.
Disclosure: General Dynamics
GD
Read the full article here